Black Hawk Down discussion

ObeyGiant

Sorry for continuing this side-topic...

mycroft wrote:

it also wasn't a film in my book just a 90odd minute action scene.

Exactly what I meant by the film being "written off as a showcase movie" when, in fact, it has a lot more going for it as a war movie than most other recent examples. Timing aside, it's an amazing piece of film with some remarkably subtle touches - amazing for such a full-on war film. And personally speaking, I don't mind when movies present one side of a story. Sometimes it just isn't necessary (for example, I can remember someone telling me he was annoyed at Spielberg's one-sided representation of the Nazis in Indiana Jones). In Black Hawk Down, the lack of politics is one of its greatest assets: it's not about the reasons for the fight, it's about the fight itself.

Which the Americans lost.

mycroft

ObeyGiant wrote:

Sorry for continuing this side-topic...


Exactly what I meant by the film being "written off as a showcase movie" when, in fact, it has a lot more going for it as a war movie than most other recent examples. Timing aside, it's an amazing piece of film with some remarkably subtle touches - amazing for such a full-on war film. And personally speaking, I don't mind when movies present one side of a story. Sometimes it just isn't necessary (for example, I can remember someone telling me he was annoyed at Spielberg's one-sided representation of the Nazis in Indiana Jones). In Black Hawk Down, the lack of politics is one of its greatest assets: it's not about the reasons for the fight, it's about the fight itself.

Which the Americans lost.

Okay which the american lost, however baring the one dude in the sunglasses on the Somalia side, there was Zero humanity on side of the somalias. Nothing they were just wave after wave of slaughtered darkies getting gunned down and occasionally gunning down the noble square jawed americans. I have never seen a more dehumanised enemy in a modern war film, which attempts to be accurate or an honest intrepretation of what occured. Your rambo's and van dammes sure they slaughter the bad guys but its an action flick, this was supposed to be a war film, and I just found it remarkable how faceless and anonymous the Somalia were presented. They were either filmed from a distance, or backlit, or from a low angle, there was no humanity in their filming, thus desensitizing you to their deaths, while the tragic slo mo deaths of the noble americans are filmed with almost pornographic detail.

And you're telling me theres no politics in that? :rolleyes:

echomadman

mycroft wrote:

I thought Pedro Scalia did an amazing cutting job, but post 9/11 patriotism, and the fact that thousands and thousands of anonymous "darkies" just get mowed down that it echo'd pieces of jingoistic film making like Zulu, and just wasn't appropiate, it also wasn't a film in my book just a 90odd minute action scene.

???
but they did kill hundreds of somalis*, I'll grant you that it was a bit "america fúck yeah" in places, but it's reasonably faithful to actual events, and they did lose in the end. Read the book/listen to the commentaries to get a sense of what was altered for cinematic appeal and so the americans would let him use blackhawks insead of having to mock it up using hueys.

I know a lot of people who dismiss BHD out of hand as "american propoganda", I think they saw a different movie to me.


*skinnies was the preferred derogatory nomenclature btw, not "darkies"

ObeyGiant

mycroft wrote:

And you're telling me theres no politics in that? :rolleyes:

Once again, I'm repeating myself - I personally don't mind when movies present one side of a story. For some situations, it just doesn't benefit the movie. War movies, for example. For an honest, graphic depiction of war from the point of view of a soldier on the ground (on either side) - yes, the enemy is dehumanised (although with all of the faceless interchangeable American soldiers, one could say that they were never particularly 'humanised' either). As I said, the movie leaves the politics behind, presenting the situation as seen from an American soldier's point of view.

That the somalis were a dark-skinned ferocious mob and the Americans were predominantly white and in good shape are both just facts regarding that particular situation. If you have problems with these, you shouldn't take it out on what is otherwise a really fantastic movie.

mycroft

echomadman wrote:

???
but they did kill hundreds of somalis*, I'll grant you that it was a bit "america fúck yeah" in places, but it's reasonably faithful to actual events, and they did lose in the end. Read the book/listen to the commentaries to get a sense of what was altered for cinematic appeal and so the americans would let him use blackhawks insead of having to mock it up using hueys.

I know a lot of people who dismiss BHD out of hand as "american propoganda", I think they saw a different movie to me.


*skinnies was the preferred derogatory nomenclature btw, not "darkies"

And again I'm not disputing the facts I'm disputing the manner in which the facts were presented. I've rarly seen the "bad guys" so dehumanised in a film, they were just these blank, shadows almost getting mowed down, more personality was instilled in the orcs in lord of the rings, than was given to the Somilian warriors in BHD.

I don't dispute the film is technically exceptional, well crafted, beautifully shot and cut, however I just find it a telling signpost in the downword spiral of Scott as a filmaker. Scott make his mark with a film which was about humanity and personality and consciousness, Blade Runner, there was a morality, and heart at the center of this (again exceptionally well made) film, you care about all the protaginists 25 odd years later he's making a film where the "darkies" or "skinnies" are blown away over and over again, while the Americans are given subtle touches to define their character and motivation, theres no attempt to protray their opponents with the slightest shred of humanity.

Once again, I'm repeating myself - I personally don't mind when movies present one side of a story.

Which is it, you don't mind the politics or that the politics is one sided and thats okay, cause you're flip flopping here.

For some situations, it just doesn't benefit the movie. War movies, for example. For an honest, graphic depiction of war from the point of view of a soldier on the ground (on either side) - yes, the enemy is dehumanised (although with all of the faceless interchangeable American soldiers, one could say that they were never particularly 'humanised' either).

Crap the personality of so many of the soldiers were thrown out the, the guy ripping off his cast, the pilot thinking of his kids, it was absurdly one sided.

As for all war movies, dehumanising the enemy, I'd recommend a midnight clear, cross of iron, hell even the end of full metal jacket for really excellent vivid war films which managed to humanise the enemy. Hell Zulu which is the spiritual forefather of Black Hawk down did a better job.

As stated it's not that I don't think war films dehumanise the enemy, it's the extraordinary lengths the filming of black hawk down, went out of it's way to dehumanise it's enemies.

As I said, the movie leaves the politics behind, presenting the situation as seen from an American soldier's point of view.

And thats not politcal? Do you remember when the film came out?

That the somalis were a dark-skinned ferocious mob and the Americans were predominantly white and in good shape are both just facts regarding that particular situation. If you have problems with these, you shouldn't take it out on what is otherwise a really fantastic movie.

I'm not sure if you're being obtuse or just very dense so I'm going to go through this once again nice and slowly.

It's not the skin tone or the side the film took, it's the extraordinary lengths the film went to dehumanise one side. A bunch of blokes in uniforms automatically don't look very different or display personality, a bunch of blokes backlight, crawling down darken allies, their faces obscured to unbelievable degree fighting aganist the noble americans who are well lit, and displaying personality, is just absurdly one sided.

nadir

mycroft wrote:

Okay which the american lost, however baring the one dude in the sunglasses on the Somalia side, there was Zero humanity on side of the somalias. Nothing they were just wave after wave of slaughtered darkies getting gunned down and occasionally gunning down the noble square jawed americans. I have never seen a more dehumanised enemy in a modern war film, which attempts to be accurate or an honest intrepretation of what occured. Your rambo's and van dammes sure they slaughter the bad guys but its an action flick, this was supposed to be a war film, and I just found it remarkable how faceless and anonymous the Somalia were presented. They were either filmed from a distance, or backlit, or from a low angle, there was no humanity in their filming, thus desensitizing you to their deaths, while the tragic slo mo deaths of the noble americans are filmed with almost pornographic detail.

And you're telling me theres no politics in that? :rolleyes:

I grew up there when I was a kid for 2 years, ergo I know more that you
AHAHAHA
.... and I thought it was a very realistic interpretation of what happened
apart from that scene where he throws the grenade into the window of the tall building, that was just rediculous XD

mycroft

nadir wrote:

I grew up there when I was a kid for 2 years, ergo I know more that you
AHAHAHA

Wow, and what are you going to do when you grow up past ten.

.... and I thought it was a very realistic interpretation of what happened
apart from that scene where he throws the grenade into the window of the tall building, that was just rediculous XD

Ah so you were there wandering the streets when it happened.

Course you were and we have your word that it's true.

ok cool, that still leaves 5.5 americans, which is just too much imho

Really why? aside from a jingoistic anti american buzz?

I can disagree with the americans on the list but america and american directors are at the forefront of cinema and have been since DW Griffith, theres dozens of american directors who deserve to populate that list.

nadir

mycroft wrote:

Wow, and what are you going to do when you grow up past ten.

/me counts fingers :eek:

mycroft wrote:

Ah so you were there wandering the streets when it happened.

Course you were and we have your word that it's true.

I guess my sarcasm was lost on you, but if u wanna get serious they were fairly savage, I dont have much respect for them, we still have good somali friends from there obviously, but like the war mongers and stuff were bad bastards, 'most of the people depicted in the film', Im no mad fan of the Americans and Russians either, but at least they didn't kill our friends.

mycroft wrote:

Really why? aside from a jingoistic anti american buzz?

I can disagree with the americans on the list but america and american directors are at the forefront of cinema and have been since DW Griffith, theres dozens of american directors who deserve to populate that list.

dunno, Im like my asian movies, I wold rate asian movie making alone to be better than american film making. not to mention the rest of the world. Id be happy to give America 3 Directors in the top 10, and say another 3 in in the 10 - 20 range, I guess its just way hard to rate like this. I'm just saying there are may too many good directors out there to give America more than half of the top 10 places.

mycroft

nadir wrote:

/me counts fingers :eek:

I guess my sarcasm was lost on you,

I'm sorry your sarcasm was lost on me ? :rolleyes:

but if u wanna get serious they were fairly savage, I dont have much respect for them, we still have good somali friends from there obviously, but like the war mongers and stuff were bad bastards, 'most of the people depicted in the film', Im no mad fan of the Americans and Russians either, but at least they didn't kill our friends.

:rolleyes:

And so this gives you carte blanche about what accurate and what was not, cause mates of yours alledgly saw was what going on. Also you are once again missing the entire thrust of my criticism, but that doesn't really surprise me.

dunno, Im like my asian movies, I wold rate asian movie making alone to be better than american film making. not to mention the rest of the world. Id be happy to give America 3 Directors in the top 10, and say another 3 in in the 10 - 20 range, I guess its just way hard to rate like this. I'm just saying there are may too many good directors out there to give America more than half of the top 10 places.

So what we're giving them out on population averages? By that rational we don't deserve nearly as many Nobel prizes for literature, as we have because of our countries population and the laws of averages. You want to discuss the relative merits of individual directors and their worthiness on this list knock yourself out, if you want to get into a hissy fit because you feel you like some "obscure" asian directors and want to feel like a cinephile by demanding their inclusion fine, discuss the directors on their individual merits, don't get in a huff because you aren't even aware Hitchcock was british. :rolleyes:

ObeyGiant

mycroft wrote:

Which is it, you don't mind the politics or that the politics is one sided and thats okay, cause you're flip flopping here.

The movie presents the situation as an experience of one of the soldiers fighting on the American side. It remains completely apolitical in that regard - it doesn't care about why they're fighting, the politics of the situation and constantly repeats that fact. Josh Harnett is presented as the fresh-faced new segeant who cares about the "Skinnies". When he asks what Eric Bana, the hard-nosed battle-worn veteran thinks of the situation, Eric Bana replies "Y'know what I think? Don't really matter what I think. Once that first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that **** just goes right out the window." This sentence sums up exactly what they were trying to achieve in the movie.

So I'll say it again: there are no politics in this movie. It is intended as a graphic depiction of war from the eyes of a soldier on the ground. The only politics in the movie are the ones you bring yourself - and if you want to see this as some kind of white supremicist-cum-american imperialist propaganda, I say fair enough.

(But get some help.)

mycroft wrote:

And thats not politcal? Do you remember when the film came out?

It came out in December 2001, but it had been in production for months before 9/11. The book it was based on had been around since 1999. I'm not saying 9/11 had no bearing on the movie, but the movie didn't suddenly appear in its current form when the US government snapped its fingers. So I don't think that has much bearing on our current discussion.

mycroft wrote:

I'm not sure if you're being obtuse or just very dense so I'm going to go through this once again nice and slowly.

What are we, 12 year olds in a pissing contest here? Let's try and keep it civil, at least.

mycroft wrote:

is just absurdly one sided.

Noone is arguing otherwise. This is the third post where I've said that it's a one-sided (although, as I've mentioned, apolitical) film.

ObeyGiant

Hey mods, cheers for giving this its own thread. I was feeling pretty awful for having hijacked what was otherwise a pretty deadly thread.

ixoy

Right, split this thread up so the BHD discussion wouldn't detract too much from the original. Personally, didn't like the movie. I felt a little like mycroft on its one sidedness affecting me but it wasn't really that it was political. I felt the imbalance didn't help me to sympathise/empathise with the Americans in any way because a faceless enemy made it hard for me, as a viewer, to get involved in the situation they were fighting for.

Now of course, that's kind of the point and I get that - soldiers are being just dropped into such combat situation. Unfortunately, in this case, it didn't work and, not having any emotional connection to the movie, I felt I was just watching a technical showcase for Ridley Scott's camerawork and didn't enjoy the picture.

Boggles

ObeyGiant wrote:

Sorry for continuing this side-topic...
Which the Americans lost.

American Casualties = 17

Somalian Casualties = 1000+

This has to be a draw at least

BlitzKrieg

i felt blackhwk down was one-sided but it wasnt where i faulted the film, i faulted the film on its inability to care for any of the characters. sadly its been a while since i have seen the film so i cant explian it fully but i do have written in my notebook from when i came out of the cinema..."who was fighting who?" But in fairness at least they stuck in a text at the beginning or end (cant remember) explaining where the events lead to...

But visually it was a treat but narratively its a mess, they set the characters up in the first 15 minutes and then when all hell breaks loose the story is jumping all over the place, and because the soldiers and enemy all looked the same it became confusing, unfocused and i lost interest fairly quickly.


To be fair, it would have been difficult to get Blackhawk down to appeal to me, i like alot of duality in my films, hence i tend to enjoy visually films like blackhawk down and saving private ryan, but i would never go as far as to say it was an excellent film. (Cross of Iron as someone named...one of Peckinpah's best and one of my favourite war films)


Tears of the Sun...NOW THAT WAS AN UNHOLY PIECE OF BIAS SH*T. I really felt angry after that film. Looking in its special features the only scene that portrayed the muslim soldiers as anything more then butchering monsters was cut. That really annoyed me. For those who dont know the film, the plot follows Bruce willis's crack cammando team as they lead christian people out of Nigeria (i think it was Nigeria) while they are being chased by muslim soldiers who slaughter and rape everything in their path, torture priests and are never presented more then these animals. The scene that was cut was showing their leader giving them a speech where he shouts out about becoming a nation and punishing those who had oppressed them.

mycroft

ObeyGiant wrote:

So I'll say it again: there are no politics in this movie. It is intended as a graphic depiction of war from the eyes of a soldier on the ground. The only politics in the movie are the ones you bring yourself - and if you want to see this as some kind of white supremicist-cum-american imperialist propaganda, I say fair enough.



It came out in December 2001, but it had been in production for months before 9/11. The book it was based on had been around since 1999. I'm not saying 9/11 had no bearing on the movie, but the movie didn't suddenly appear in its current form when the US government snapped its fingers. So I don't think that has much bearing on our current discussion.

So basically you're saying politics had nothing to do with it and then politcs might have something to do with it. Care to make your mind up?

What are we, 12 year olds in a pissing contest here? Let's try and keep it civil, at least.

Not but if you keep missing my point, I'm going to have to try again using smaller words.

Noone is arguing otherwise. This is the third post where I've said that it's a one-sided (although, as I've mentioned, apolitical) film.

But saying it's an absurdly one sided film, and then saying its not a politcal film is just a massive contradiction.

Many films were held back, delayed because of the "unpleasant implications" for the american people post 9/11, black hawk down wasn't, hell they may as well have had recruitment booths in cinema lobbies after the film.

Ixoy wrote:

I felt a little like mycroft on its one sidedness affecting me but it wasn't really that it was political. I felt the imbalance didn't help me to sympathise/empathise with the Americans in any way because a faceless enemy made it hard for me, as a viewer, to get involved in the situation they were fighting for.

Again the attitude and portrayal of the americans and whom they were fighting seems to embody US tactics and there perception of war. Foreign combatants and civilian casualties aren't counted, by the US army, they are indifferent in general to the aftermath and reprecussions of their actions.

Am I saying it's not an accurate account of how the americans viewed the situation? No. Does that account raise worrying implications for how america sees those they fight? Yup. Should Scott have attempted to humanise the Somalian troops, instead of dehumanising and by doing so does he make not a movie but a technically accomplished US army approved version of events? Yes.

Lemming

BlitzKrieg wrote:

But visually it was a treat but narratively its a mess, they set the characters up in the first 15 minutes and then when all hell breaks loose the story is jumping all over the place, and because the soldiers and enemy all looked the same it became confusing, unfocused and i lost interest fairly quickly.


To be fair, it would have been difficult to get Blackhawk down to appeal to me, i like alot of duality in my films, hence i tend to enjoy visually films like blackhawk down and saving private ryan, but i would never go as far as to say it was an excellent film. (Cross of Iron as someone named...one of Peckinpah's best and one of my favourite war films)

Have you considered that that confusion is intended. The whole "wtf is going on" through all the chaos?

TBH, I thought BHD was a really good film. Yes it's one sided. And yes the Somalias aren't well depicted in it. But it can be argued that a lot of the US soldiers are simply fodder too. Most of them we don't even recognise from anywhere else int he film. Just shapes splattered with blood.

So to say that it was only the Somalis that were dehumanised is a fallacy. How do you covered 1000+ people who are unknown? How do you track down these people with any reliability nia country which is, lets be frank, still very dangerous - and the mere mention of "so did you fight a bunch of americans" by a foreigner, and probably an american at that, is likely to get you gunned down.

toiletduck

*me agrees with lemming*

BlitzKrieg

ave you considered that that confusion is intended. The whole "wtf is going on" through all the chaos?

intended or not it did not appeal to me. Maybe George Lucas intended those crappy lines,maybe Jerry Bruckhiemer and micheal bay intended that ben affleck be so bad in pearl harbour but i still hated those elements. Intended or not it didnt appeal to me.


And there are other ways to humanise characters apart from giving each one individual *i got a family i am fighting for* moments, so yes i believe it is possible to humanise hundreds of somalians.

to humanise them you got to ask yourself why would 1000+ somalies defend warlords against those who were liberating them. (hint of sarcasm just in case)

ObeyGiant

mycroft wrote:

So basically you're saying politics had nothing to do with it and then politcs might have something to do with it. Care to make your mind up?

My bad, I meant to say that 9/11 had an impact on the release of the movie. Other than that, no - the film is exactly as how the original screenplay (pre-9/11) intended.

Of course, you're welcome to continue to pick nits and argue semantics here.

mycroft wrote:

Not but if you keep missing my point, I'm going to have to try again using smaller words.

And this is why I hate the internet. The same 'stock put-downs' come out at the same point in every discussion.

mycroft wrote:

But saying it's an absurdly one sided film, and then saying its not a politcal film is just a massive contradiction.

Since you're giving absolutely no empirical evidence to back up your claim here, I can feel perfectly justified in providing none as well, so I'll say: No, it's not.

...

Okay, I can't just leave it at that.

When asked why the screenplay didn't have any of the US soldiers discussing the politics of why they were fighting (a la Three Kings), the screenwriter and author of the book this was based on replied "Well, because none of the soldiers knew about the politics." In the movie, they were depicting as accurately as possible the experiences of the US soldiers fighting in that situation... so, well... they took all of the politics out of that situation.

Coming out of that movie, I didn't know any more about the politics of that situation than I did when I went in. But I certainly knew a lot more about what it must be like to be a soldier in the middle of an intense fire-fight with a ferocious mob.

I really don't see what you're having difficulties with.

mycroft wrote:

Many films were held back, delayed because of the "unpleasant implications" for the american people post 9/11

Sure: things like Collateral Damage which had terrorists uh.. blowing up a skyscraper. Oops.

mycroft wrote:

black hawk down wasn't, hell they may as well have had recruitment booths in cinema lobbies after the film.

"Join the US army! Get blown to bits! Have your superiors deny you reinforcements, backup or heavy artillery! Ra! Ra! Ra!" :rolleyes:

(hey - my first ever rolleyes)

mycroft wrote:

Am I saying it's not an accurate account of how the americans viewed the situation? ... Should Scott have attempted to humanise the Somalian troops, instead of dehumanising...? Yes.

Hey, you wanna talk about contradictions? Just look right here, buddy.

mycroft

ObeyGiant wrote:

My bad, I meant to say that 9/11 had an impact on the release of the movie. Other than that, no - the film is exactly as how the original screenplay (pre-9/11) intended.

And we know that how? The subtle patriotic shots getting slipped in, you're seen every cut?

Of course, you're welcome to continue to pick nits and argue semantics here.


And this is why I hate the internet. The same 'stock put-downs' come out at the same point in every discussion.

Oh the ironing.

Since you're giving absolutely no empirical evidence to back up your claim here, I can feel perfectly justified in providing none as well, so I'll say: No, it's not.

And I love the internet, the empirical part of that evidence part to make you sound cleverer. What empirical evidence do I need to display, what have you displayed? We're arguing opinions here

...

Okay, I can't just leave it at that.

When asked why the screenplay didn't have any of the US soldiers discussing the politics of why they were fighting (a la Three Kings), the screenwriter and author of the book this was based on replied "Well, because none of the soldiers knew about the politics." In the movie, they were depicting as accurately as possible the experiences of the US soldiers fighting in that situation... so, well... they took all of the politics out of that situation.

Yeah? So? What? Does that mean a filmaker has to stick to that, why can't he paint the situation as part of a more elaborate story?

Coming out of that movie, I didn't know any more about the politics of that situation than I did when I went in. But I certainly knew a lot more about what it must be like to be a soldier in the middle of an intense fire-fight with a ferocious mob.


I really don't see what you're having difficulties with.

Because thats great technical achievement it's not great film making, which is where we differ, I thought the film was empty, more than that, a an effort a real effort went into protraying the Somalias as a faceless mob, when them same effort went into protraying the americans as upright and honest, and brave.

Sure: things like Collateral Damage which had terrorists uh.. blowing up a skyscraper. Oops.

And grunts slaughtering guys with the american flag waving in the dusty sun?

"Join the US army! Get blown to bits! Have your superiors deny you reinforcements, backup or heavy artillery! Ra! Ra! Ra!" :rolleyes:

(hey - my first ever rolleyes)

Hey war is hell any recruitment sarge will tell you that, what you that, what you saw were your own guys the guys in the field getting your back no matter what. You don't think that a recruitment video?

Hey, you wanna talk about contradictions? Just look right here, buddy.

Really? spell it out for me.

delly

My 2c

Stumbled across this thread which deals with one my top 10 films. Having both read the book and watched the film on several occasions, I believe that it was a relatively accurate portrayal, or as best could be done in such a short time.

The whole idea of keeping the Somalians looking like faceless shadows is often referred to by the soldiers in the book. They would often have a large crowd amassing a good distance down the street, often armed militia mixed in with women and children. If they started to receive fire, they would simply open up on the whole crowd. There was often descriptions of how bodies were literally ‘blown apart’. This became more normal as the day progressed.

In the book as well, the author did go back to Somalia and interview people who were involved, or had been affected by the fight. These stories were not shown in the film, along with other noteworthy incidents. It’s possible that they wanted to keep the view wholly from the American side.

The whole confusion of the fight itself and not knowing who’s who, is what I think makes for a better film. There were very few people on the ground or in the command centre who had the full picture of what was going on. Add to that that a lot of the radio messages had to be relayed through the helicopters before they reached there intended recipient.

ObeyGiant

mycroft wrote:

And we know that how? The subtle patriotic shots getting slipped in, you're seen every cut?

I've read the pre-9/11 screenplay, I've read the book. And the film isn't far from either.

mycroft wrote:

Oh the ironing.

Oh, come on. Saying "You're picking nits" is not a put-down. Suggesting someone is "dense" is.

mycroft wrote:

Yeah? So? What? Does that mean a filmaker has to stick to that, why can't he paint the situation as part of a more elaborate story?

Oh, indeed they could have. And they could have gone into the reasons for the famine, why the Americans were there, how the somalis beheaded a bunch of captured prisoners and played football with their heads. Or they could have even explained how Clinton released the two Somali Lieutenants shortly after they were captured. But that's not what the filmmakers were trying to achieve with this particular film. And that's what sets this movie apart from, say, Hotel Rwanda.

mycroft wrote:

an effort a real effort went into protraying the Somalias as a faceless mob

And I agree with you on this point. But for an entirely different reason than you do - you see it as being this way to convey an idea of American Imperialism. I see it as a means to achieving a greater sense of realism regarding that particular situation and what the filmmakers were trying to achieve.

mycroft wrote:

And grunts slaughtering guys with the american flag waving in the dusty sun?

Perhaps we're arguing about different movies here - what I saw was a movie about a bunch of American soldiers that needlessly killed because they were dropped into a situation they knew nothing about and received no support from their commanding officers. Hardly the most spectacular advertisment for the US army I've ever seen.

mycroft wrote:

Hey war is hell any recruitment sarge will tell you that, what you that, what you saw were your own guys the guys in the field getting your back no matter what. You don't think that a recruitment video?

Well, that would definitely be an interesting tactic: "You'll almost certainly die because of a complete lack of support from your superiors, but at least you'll die gloriously". Where do I sign?

mycroft wrote:

Really? spell it out for me.

You agree that it is an accurate portrayal of an American soldier's experience in that situation. And yet you say that the movie should have 'humanised' the enemy a bit more - these two concepts are completely contradictory. If the filmmakers had humanised the enemy, it would not have been an accurate portrayal of the American experience in that particular situation.

nadir

Nice thread split, /me agrees.

great discussion, I really liked this film, I dont really have to time to respond at work though mm I'll have a good read when I go home

echomadman

I've typed 3 replies to this thread today then deleted them as i dont think any amount of argueing is going to make people change their zeitgeisty ameriKKKa sux opinions of it.
Theres an article on salon.com which discuss one of the actors in it badmouthing it as propoganda, and mark bowden's refutation of it.
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2002/03/12/sexton/ < you have to watch an ad to gain access.

it covers some of the ground covered here.

wrt to the humanisation of the somali warlords troops, how? there is almost no information about them, the first hand accounts from somalis who were in mogadishu come from non-combatants (although with a situation where pre-teens are armed, the definition of non-combatants is blurred).
like lemming said

So to say that it was only the Somalis that were dehumanised is a fallacy. How do you covered 1000+ people who are unknown? How do you track down these people with any reliability nia country which is, lets be frank, still very dangerous - and the mere mention of "so did you fight a bunch of americans" by a foreigner, and probably an american at that, is likely to get you gunned down.

The film was, as has been said repeatedly, told from the perspective of the american side, and conveys the confusion and disorientating horrror of urban warfare excellently.

nadir

mycroft wrote:

I'm sorry your sarcasm was lost on me ? :rolleyes:



:rolleyes:

And so this gives you carte blanche about what accurate and what was not, cause mates of yours alledgly saw was what going on. Also you are once again missing the entire thrust of my criticism, but that doesn't really surprise me.

The thrust of you criticism is moot, also I never said mates of mine saw what was going on.
1. like has been said already, the film is from the perspective of the americans
2. the Somalis are depicted as savage (they were/are) , there is little thought/respect for life there, different culture.
3. they were cannon fodder (this too is true).

So what we're giving them out on population averages? By that rational we don't deserve nearly as many Nobel prizes for literature, as we have because of our countries population and the laws of averages. You want to discuss the relative merits of individual directors and their worthiness on this list knock yourself out, if you want to get into a hissy fit because you feel you like some "obscure" asian directors and want to feel like a cinephile by demanding their inclusion fine, discuss the directors on their individual merits, don't get in a huff because you aren't even aware Hitchcock was british. :rolleyes:

Nobel prizes are a joke, and stop puting words in my mouth, I never said or hinted at any of that, and I fail to see the relevance of me not knowing Hitchcock was English, Ive still seen a good load of his stuff, I guess your trivia knowledge means you have better judgement than I.

mycroft

ObeyGiant wrote:

I've read the pre-9/11 screenplay, I've read the book. And the film isn't far from either.

In your opinion. Also we have your word to go on.

Oh, come on. Saying "You're picking nits" is not a put-down. Suggesting someone is "dense" is.

One is suggestion I'm being anal retentive and going for minor points (unlike for example you saying it isn't politcal/it is political) The other is your inability to grasp my point.

Oh, indeed they could have. And they could have gone into the reasons for the famine, why the Americans were there, how the somalis beheaded a bunch of captured prisoners and played football with their heads. Or they could have even explained how Clinton released the two Somali Lieutenants shortly after they were captured. But that's not what the filmmakers were trying to achieve with this particular film. And that's what sets this movie apart from, say, Hotel Rwanda.

That and they were two different countries and two different reasons for wars
:rolleyes:

And I agree with you on this point. But for an entirely different reason than you do - you see it as being this way to convey an idea of American Imperialism. I see it as a means to achieving a greater sense of realism regarding that particular situation and what the filmmakers were trying to achieve.

So essentially you're saying it's a good film but shallow. I'm saying it's a shallow film with goes out of it's way to desensitise one side of the conflict while laud the other. I find that offence, cheap nasty film making.

Perhaps we're arguing about different movies here - what I saw was a movie about a bunch of American soldiers that needlessly killed because they were dropped into a situation they knew nothing about and received no support from their commanding officers. Hardly the most spectacular advertisment for the US army I've ever seen.

And yet these soldiers bravely fought on. You're not seeing it as a recruit drive for brass the grunts come out of it looking fairly **** hot, and thats who the film targets.

You agree that it is an accurate portrayal of an American soldier's experience in that situation. And yet you say that the movie should have 'humanised' the enemy a bit more - these two concepts are completely contradictory. If the filmmakers had humanised the enemy, it would not have been an accurate portrayal of the American experience in that particular situation.

No I agree it's an accurate protrayl of their version. I'm saying the film should have tried to have struck a balance between their perception and the reality. So not contradictory. You're just having trouble seeing that.

nadir wrote:

The thrust of you criticism is moot, also I never said mates of mine saw what was going on.

Nadir wrote:

I grew up there when I was a kid for 2 years, ergo I know more that you
AHAHAHA
.... and I thought it was a very realistic interpretation of what happened
apart from that scene where he throws the grenade into the window of the tall building, that was just rediculous XD

If you're going to play the weekend warrior try and get your story straight.

And again you're stating opinion as fact without bothering to support it, other than you alledgely knowing more thna us.

Nobel prizes are a joke, and stop puting words in my mouth, I never said or hinted at any of that, and I fail to see the relevance of me not knowing Hitchcock was English, Ive still seen a good load of his stuff, I guess your trivia knowledge means you have better judgement than I.

Nobel prizes aren't the oscars they're awarded by a prestigious panel. I was merely illustrating the point that you seem to think that the laws of averages didicate who should be in the top ten. I'm just saying you're entire rant about the top ten and nationality is skewed and ill informed and if you want to build a compelling case for some or other directors based on region its beholden on you to get some simple facts straight.

BlitzKrieg

i dont think any amount of argueing is going to make people change their zeitgeisty ameriKKKa sux opinions of it

myviews on america have little bearing on why i disliked the film and in fairness mycrofthas referenced zulu as the spiritual father tp bhd so it doesnt matter which nations are fighting its still too heavy on one side and regardless of it being intended or what image they wanted it didnt appeal to us as a film

ObeyGiant

mycroft wrote:

In your opinion.

As you pointed out, isn't that precisely what we're arguing here? Opinions?

mycroft wrote:

Also we have your word to go on.

And "delly"s, who also read the book.

mycroft wrote:

The other is your inability to grasp my point.

No, I understand completely what you're trying to say and the points you're trying to make. I just don't agree, and consistently given reasons for why I disagree.

mycroft wrote:

That and they were two different countries and two different reasons for wars
:rolleyes:

Thank you for stating the obvious.

mycroft wrote:

So essentially you're saying it's a good film but shallow. I'm saying it's a shallow film with goes out of it's way to desensitise one side of the conflict while laud the other. I find that offence, cheap nasty film making.

But this is exactly what we've been arguing about for these past few posts - I disagree with the idea of it lauding one side and desensitising the other. I believe it gave us a stark depiction of what it's like being a soldier (albeit, an American soldier) in the middle of a crisis. There was very little cheap emotion on either side. And virtually no politics involved on either side. And the examples you have given so far to support your case have been questionable at best. "The guy ripping off his cast"? Well, yes. That actually happened. The guy's letter to his family? Well, yes. That actually happened.

Also, the movie includes a number examples of the filmmakers not portraying the Somalis in the entirely one-sided light as you are making out (for example, the child accidentally shooting his father, crying on the father's chest, completely ignoring the American soldier with the gun pointed at him).

mycroft wrote:

the grunts come out of it looking fairly **** hot, and thats who the film targets.

Barely two of the grunts came out of it without some massive injury. I still don't see this as being a particularly effective tool for recruiting people - depicting a bunch of soldiers getting their asses handed to them. But then again, I don't see America's Army as a particularly useful recruiting tool either - if you're disinclined to join the army, no videogame or movie is going to convince you.

But that's just me.

mycroft wrote:

No I agree it's an accurate protrayl of their version. I'm saying the film should have tried to have struck a balance between their perception and the reality. So not contradictory. You're just having trouble seeing that.

I understand that the film could have struck that balance (don't you think should have sounds a little.. uh.. arrogant?) - I already said this. If it had, it would have been less accurate in its portrayal of the experience of a soldier stuck in that situation.

mycroft wrote:

If you're going to play the weekend warrior try and get your story straight.

Erm. The guy actually never said that he or his friends saw what was going on - that was your invention. He just said that he lived there for two years. His story is straight.

mycroft

ObeyGiant wrote:

As you pointed out, isn't that precisely what we're arguing here? Opinions?


And "delly"s, who also read the book.

Yes but you're presenting your reading of the script and the book as fact that it hasn't changed, you're now backpeddling to save face that it's now your opinion.

No, I understand completely what you're trying to say and the points you're trying to make. I just don't agree, and consistently given reasons for why I disagree.

No you haven't you've ignore the central thrust of my criticism which is the filmakers went out of their way to dehumanise the Somalians.

Thank you for stating the obvious.

You seem to need me to.

But this is exactly what we've been arguing about for these past few posts - I disagree with the idea of it lauding one side and desensitising the other. I believe it gave us a stark depiction of what it's like being a soldier (albeit, an American soldier) in the middle of a crisis. There was very little cheap emotion on either side. And virtually no politics involved on either side. And the examples you have given so far to support your case have been questionable at best. "The guy ripping off his cast"? Well, yes. That actually happened. The guy's letter to his family? Well, yes. That actually happened.

Thats not cheap emotion?

Also, the movie includes a number examples of the filmmakers not portraying the Somalis in the entirely one-sided light as you are making out (for example, the child accidentally shooting his father, crying on the father's chest, completely ignoring the American soldier with the gun pointed at him).

Yes, a child. So only a child is allowed to show the pain he feels after the siuation the other Somalians have put him in.

Barely two of the grunts came out of it without some massive injury. I still don't see this as being a particularly effective tool for recruiting people - depicting a bunch of soldiers getting their asses handed to them. But then again, I don't see America's Army as a particularly useful recruiting tool either - if you're disinclined to join the army, no videogame or movie is going to convince you.

Theres an article by a soldier who went on to be a technical advisor on three kings, according to him theres nothing more like what the troops like to do than to kick back and watch platoon. You're trying to generalise now about the psychology of everyone who joins the army. Neither one of us would, I suspect, willingingly join the army, but I suspect film of troops being unbelieavable heroic and macho in the face of overwhelming odds is the kind of thing that would appeal to their mindset.
But that's just me.

I understand that the film could have struck that balance (don't you think should have sounds a little.. uh.. arrogant?) - I already said this. If it had, it would have been less accurate in its portrayal of the experience of a soldier stuck in that situation.

Nope, see it's my opinion, and frankly yes it should have it was irresponsible filmmaking.

Erm. The guy actually never said that he or his friends saw what was going on - that was your invention. He just said that he lived there for two years. His story is straight.

No he's trying to suggest having alledgly being in Somalia he has a better take on whether the action was plausible or believable, bit like me having been in Londonderry once waying on Alan Greengrass's version of Bloody Sunday.

ObeyGiant

The roundabouting has now reached epidemic proportions.

mycroft wrote:

Yes but you're presenting your reading of the script and the book as fact that it hasn't changed, you're now backpeddling to save face that it's now your opinion.

Well, of course it's my opinion. This is an internet bulletin board and we're talking about movies. Everything is implicitly "IMHO". Having said that, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from reading the book/screenplay and forming your own (contrary) opinion.

mycroft wrote:

No you haven't you've ignore the central thrust of my criticism which is the filmakers went out of their way to dehumanise the Somalians.

No.
No, I haven't.
In one of my first posts on this thread, I said: "For an honest, graphic depiction of war from the point of view of a soldier on the ground (on either side) - yes, the enemy is dehumanised".
See? I didn't ignore it. I just have a different opinion.

mycroft wrote:

You seem to need me to.

I do? So far I've understood and acknowledged the points you're trying to make. I simply disagree with them.

mycroft wrote:

Thats not cheap emotion?

No, it's an honest and accurate depiction of what happened. There is a difference.

mycroft wrote:

Yes, a child. So only a child is allowed to show the pain he feels after the siuation the other Somalians have put him in.

Only? Hardly. No, that was one example. There are a number of others - such as an elderly father carrying the dead body of a child in his arms, completely oblivious to the speeding humvee he's just walked out in front of.

mycroft wrote:

You're trying to generalise now about the psychology of everyone who joins the army.

But then... so are you?!

mycroft wrote:

Theres an article by a soldier who went on to be a technical advisor on three kings, according to him theres nothing more like what the troops like to do than to kick back and watch platoon. .. I suspect film of troops being unbelieavable heroic and macho in the face of overwhelming odds is the kind of thing that would appeal to their mindset.

Surely you're not arguing that Platoon and Black Hawk Down present even remotely the same version of "War is hell"? Like a bunch of stoners "kick back" and watch "Requiem for a Dream" instead of, say, "Harold and Kumar".

mycroft wrote:

Nope, see it's my opinion

Oh, I understood you were merely presenting your opinion and not fact. I just thought it reeked of "I KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR EVERYBODY". That's all.

mycroft wrote:

and frankly yes it should have it was irresponsible filmmaking.

And here we have it: I understand what you're saying, but in my opinion, it was fine and served its purpose. Furthermore (and maybe I'm adding more fuel to the fire), in my opinion, had this film been made pre-9/11, we would not be having this discussion.

destroyhumans!!

I thought it was absolutely awesome

mycroft

ObeyGiant wrote:

And here we have it: I understand what you're saying, but in my opinion, it was fine and served its purpose. Furthermore (and maybe I'm adding more fuel to the fire), in my opinion, had this film been made pre-9/11, we would not be having this discussion.

This is my last post on the subject because like you said we're going around in circles.

This argument centers on whether we feel Black Hawk Down is the kind of film that merits Scotts continued existance as a film maker of merit and worthy of addition in a top ten directors list.

The argument presented by you and others in this film that BHD is a technically accomplished one sided film that gives a shallow version one sided version of events, and this is okay, even great.

However the argument presented by other side is the film is essentially a technically accomplished but morally dubious and frankly slightly echo's a film like trimuph of the will in it's rampant display of the heroism and nobility of one side.

Scott's earlier film's displayed a humanity, an empathy, an attempt to explore the human condition, conscious, the nature of artifical intelligence. Now the pro Scott/BCH basically view him making a shallow one sided technically accomplished version of events as continued justification that scott is worthy of a world renowned filmaker. I do't buy this, you can try and pretend this is all some shallow post 9/11 backlash, but I find the idoltry of one army, and the dehumanisation of another, disturbing particularly when the conflict is not fully resolved, and esp from a filmaker who's previous cannon has produced visually impressive and technically accomplished filmaking with an attempt to at least try to present a greater understanding of the concept, aside from a couple of glib throw away moments.

This is it, I and the others don't deny thant the film is fantastically well put together, and brillantly shot scenes, but lacks any real depth or intelligence. And thats the problem, Scott started out with films like Bladerunner, and Alien, and then reduced to Top Guns with Titties, GI Jane, and BCD is another signpost in a filmaker who's films are technically accomplished but just aren't up to the merit of his previous work.

nadir

Great films dont have to be moralistic, they might be hateful, 'dehumanising' or any number of things that might cause offence to an individual viewer.
Scott acomplished what he wanted to do with Blackhawk down imo, and I really think it works brilliantly.
For the record I don't think blackhawk down lacks real depth or intelligence, it depicts people trying to survive in a hell situation, the desperation, confusion, loss, and bonding between the soldiers is excellently portrayed It's not concerned with the somalis, because the film is about the Americans and their perspective only. I will give you one thing, it's not as good as Bladerunner, but then again what is. I do however think it's as good a war movie as Alien is a sci fi/horror. I just happen to prefer the latter genre.

now im off to play some americas army!

mycroft

nadir wrote:

Great films dont have to be moralistic, they might be hateful, 'dehumanising' or any number of things that might cause offence to an individual viewer.

No but great films and I mean great films have got to affect you on several levels, they have to engage you challenge you, intellectually, emotionally, just "woa that looked kick ass" is only a juvenile definition of a great film, a great film leaves you pondering more than just "man that **** was just fúcked up"

Scott acomplished what he wanted to do with Blackhawk down imo, and I really think it works brilliantly.
For the record I don't think blackhawk down lacks real depth or intelligence, it depicts people trying to survive in a hell situation, the desperation, confusion, loss, and bonding between the soldiers is excellently portrayed It's not concerned with the somalis, because the film is about the Americans and their perspective only. I will give you one thing, it's not as good as Bladerunner, but then again what is. I do however think it's as good a war movie as Alien is a sci fi/horror. I just happen to prefer the latter genre.

now im off to play some americas army!

And thats the crux of the issue and your last line is most telling. It does lack depth intelligence and humanity, and the point is, the director can and has done better.